- 1 Variability in PSA Measurement
- 2 Template
- 3 Curious about comment on behavioral epigenetics, please give more detail
- 4 Reference errors on 18 September
- 5 FNDC5 unreliable medical source
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for September 19
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for October 1
- 8 Template talk:PDB#Requested edit 2
Variability in PSA Measurement
I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals.
- Just to be clear, I was not the one who nominated this template for deletion, GeoffreyT2000 did here and here I understand what you are saying, but I don't think we can change it. Similar to an article, once a template has been nominated for deletion, the notice should not be removed or changed until the discussion closes. Furthermore, there is no established mechanism for "templates for deprecation" discussions other than the current ongoing RfC. In any case, It looks like this deletion discussion is close to a snow close for keep and the deletion template will soon be removed. Boghog (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Curious about comment on behavioral epigenetics, please give more detail
- Gregory E. Miller, Tianyi Yu, Edith Chen, and Gene H. Brody (2015). "Self-control forecasts better psychosocial outcomes but faster epigenetic aging in low-SES youth". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (33). doi:10.1073/pnas.1505063112.
- No good deed goes unpunished; Self-control improves your prospects. But it may harm your health July 18th 2015 The Economist
- Hi. Thanks for your message. I generally reply here, not on the simple English Wikipedia, especially when the article is question (Behavioral epigenetics) is in the regular English Wikipedia, not the simple English Wikipedia. In any case, the reason I reverted your addition was two fold. First, the citation that you added is a primary source. Per WP:MEDRS. generally secondary sources are required to support medical claims. This is because I surprisingly large percentage of medical research simply cannot be repeated or the association is less strong than initially claimed. The conclusions needs to be reviewed by a third party and put in context in order to increase the confidence that the results are real. Second, the citation that you inserted is about a very specific epigenitic genetic result (the effect socioeconomic status on epigenetic aging) whereas the text you inserted it after was about a general mechanism (epigenetic changes on neuron structure and function). Hence the citation didn't really fit there.Boghog (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 18 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Androgen insensitivity syndrome page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
FNDC5 unreliable medical source
Hi Boghog, I would like to know why you think that PNAS journal is an unreliable medical sourse. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic1975 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HOXA5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PTEN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DDR1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esophageal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.